I think it's worth stepping back from this, and thinking of it as a sociologist, or anthropologist might. Is there perhaps a sort of middle class version of graffiti tagging going on, seeking to establish who has the power to put up public 'art'? A bit like the Medici in Florence paying for Cellini to put up a bronze statue to counter Michelangelo's David?

Interestingly it was realised rather late in day the that the location of the Forest Hill mural was contained within the extents of the extension to the conservation area there.

AFAIA Lewisham council remained silent on that matter for that location.- and that posture in itself may be viewed as the council having set a precedent. Hence we should examine the authority's resolve closely.

JRW's comment on the PW gable is well understood and was considered carefully at the outset. Its strongest point is that it projects the best sight lines of all the candidate sites considered . In that matter it presents a strong case still - however PW articulated a view to Jon that they may wish to take their own project forward unilaterally.

Matters such as access and additional costs attached to this were felt to be too great. However needs must and this may require review once more including further discussion with Property World.

Perhaps they could be invited to fund access costs and the mural itself be paid for by this project.

As I have said in an earlier post the gable wall at Property World already has evidence of large scale signage painted on the brickwork.

Ergo it may be reasonable to assume therefore that any refreshment works in the form of renewed signage could be argued to be deemed exempt on grounds that the Conservation Area directive cannot be made to be applied retrospectively.

In the last week, a large graffiti sign of no artistic quality has been painted high up on the side of Enterprise car rentals at 139 - 151 Sydenham Road. There used to be an advertising hoarding there, and its safe access platform has given the vandal access.

I spoke to the manager, who is reporting it to the building's owner, who seem to be S G Smith the car dealership. Could this be considered as a possible site for a 'Sydenham' graphic mural? Down the scummy end, we like to remind people we are still part of Sydenham! The building's owners might even contribute, as the current look is dire, and I don't think the Council have no duty to help as it is private land.

I would also concur with JRW's view - even though have not yet spotted the artwork.

Equally have spotted that a similar gable poster site overlooking The Dolphin and which I believe belongs to the undertaker has fallen into dis-use. Perhaps an opportunity to strip the advert hoarding and paint a mural there in its place.

I checked, and the derelict signboard outside the Dolphin is owned by the pub freeholder. I have alerted them to its state, and our interest in it for a mural, and they have passed this on to the relevant person. No idea what our chances are, but at least we might see the current mess tidied up one way or another. I will post when I hear back from them.

It will of course be very much down to the landowner and tenant, so I don't know we can promise a public vote - it would depend on them. As far as I am concerned, whether the mess is removed or reboarded for a public or a pub sign mural, it will only make the place look better.

Don't rush to the design stage - the story is far from over. Currently everyone is denying ownership, so I am on to Clear Channel to ask them. It isn't on their interactive map of current sites, but they clearly rented it from someone at some point. If not, it might be a case of getting statements from each party saying that it is OK from them for a mural, to show due diligence. Sigh!

The undertakers say it is not theirs, which makes sense as if it had been, it would have been mounted on the wall. The structure is freestanding, sited on pub land. I think it has been out of use for so many years that everyone has forgotten about it and lost the paperwork. The freeholder says it belongs to Clear Channel, based on their logo on it, but CC business practice is to rent advertising space. In all, the structure has, in all logic, to belong to the landowner, but as a dangerous public liability no one is desperate to own it!

It will take a while, but we will get there. It is a good potential site in the line-up, but the absolute star spot would be Property World gable. Can you find out what the projected maintenance schedule is for that bank of the railway? Any opportunities for access likely? I still think the Christmas /new year shutdown is the window of opportunity for P/W or platform 1.

Hi all. The Enterprise car hire site has come back into contention, as the planning department has rejected the application to install illuminated digital advertising boards on the site. The reason given was that it would be a distraction to traffic.

The advertising company JCDecaux may appeal, so I am trying not to get excited, but if not, the building owner is left with a badly graffiti marked eyesore. Fingers crossed they decide to make their eyesore iconic.....

Any update on the Plan A for the railway wall, JMLF? You had such good momentum and I'd hate to see things fizzle out.

If the planning restrictions mean it has to be a short new bit of wall, or within one-frame of the old wall, perhaps someone could sketch something out similar to the Victorian-style mural on Kirkdale high street?

Sorry if i am being particularly dense but I still can't make sense of the Council's original reply to JMLF. When they say "they would prefer" what does this mean? Do they mean this won't go ahead unless we comply with their views , or do they just mean "we 'd prefer" literaly, in which case, who cares, they aren't necessaruily living here and if they are that doesn't give them a say over anyone else if the council does not have jurisdiction over the wall in question.It seems very opaque language for a statutory body to use to me .
Great ideas from JRW!

I was absolutely thrilled to see that the derelict signboard has been removed from forecourt of the Dolphin, leaving an attractive London stock brick wall. Clearly the landlord, freeholder, undertaker and Clear Channel, each of whom denied ownership, finally got together and agreed it could go. Yay!!

There are 2 weeks to go until the Enterprise building planning application can no longer appeal their refusal by Lewisham. When that is sorted, I will see if the building owner would support a mural to cover the ghastly high level graffiti tag, visible from some distance. Personally, I really fancy the original multicoloured 'Sydenham' mural, or the 'se26' one for this position. Let's remind people that Sydenham doesn't end at Mayow Road......

JayB, I agree. It is nonsense if the only bit of wall on Station Approach (as I read it) that the council "prefers" is the short new stretch behind the Tardis as I can't imagine any artist wanting to use that space which is mostly hidden anyway. Plus the council has done absolutely nothing to improve the Tardis itself despite howls of protest and many pleas to do so. It is one thing for the council to refuse to improve its own eyesore, but hypocritical to prevent a potential crowdfunding effort to improve something privately owned.

So, if it is indeed the case that the council's lack of clarity is holding things up, maybe an organised placard waving group could be arranged and notify the local press just before the next Sydenham Assembly meeting on 13th (and notify the council in advance accordingly). Someone organised one or more such demonstrations to save The Greyhound as I recall.

JRW, I lost track of which site you were referring to at points in your post, but two demos would make it even more worthwhile for the press to attend

Hopefully the council would then be obliged to stop being vague and state clearly and specifically at the Assembly Meeting or otherwise which rules they were applying, if any. If no rules apply, also to give an assurance that artwork would not be removed (or owners instructed to remove any) if on private property.

Of course, if it's not the council's lack of clarity holding things up, then maybe something else is...